Talk:Ted Lasso (character)

Prose

After reading carefully I don’t find any typos. The prose is reasonably well written in encyclopedic tone. Few comments:

• I find this sentence is redundant: Sudeikis found the act of writing and performing the character sustaining in part because of Ted's egolessness, saying: "The feeling at the end of the day of writing this guy or pretending to be this guy, it's nice. He's egoless". How about trimming it: Sudeikis found the act of writing and performing the character sustaining, saying: "The feeling at the end of the day of writing or pretending to be this guy, it's nice. He's egoless."
  • Implemented. nub :) 08:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• This sentence feels too long and repetitive: Hunt explained that Sudeikis identified curiosity as the quality that defined the character: the difference between being simply unknowing and being someone who knows how much he does not know and wants to learn, a disposition Hunt said "automatically lends itself to being a big-hearted, welcoming person who wants to know about every single person you meet". How about changing it to: Hunt explained that Sudeikis identified curiosity as the quality that defined the character; it is the difference between being simply unknowing and being someone who recognizes their own limits and wants to learn. Hunt added that this disposition "automatically lends itself to being a big-hearted, welcoming person who wants to know about every single person you meet."
  • Done. nub :) 08:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Regarding the "Analysis" section the prose is quite repetitive because every paragraph relies on the formula of "X argued that..." I recommend varying the sentence structure to improve the flow and readability. Maybe change some paragraphs from argued to suggested or implied
  • I've tried to do this, though I've left in a few "argued that"s that actually fit the scenarios. Let me know what you think. nub :) 08:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Spotcheck (per section)

I can't check references that require me to subscribe so I just do spot check on sources that available without subscription.

• Development and writing
• Critical reception
• Accolades
• Analysis

Copivio

Running Copivio, and there are two sources (LA Times and Indiwire) that has over 30% similarity. Since I am a newbie, I am not sure how to judge this. Asking for help from more experience reviewer on this one. --Preferwiki (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Preferwiki: So, looking over Earwig's assessment, I realize that there is some quite glaring WP:CLOP, something I definitely should have noticed and rectified before I came here, and something that I believe I have now fixed. The rest of that 30% similarity seems to be direct quotes, but if they prove too much, I could try to paraphrase some. nub :) 08:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nub098765: Hi, after your recent edits I already update the point 1.a to pass. However still putting it onhold because I am not confident passing the covypio of over 30%, particularly for that LA Times source that becomes source for more than one paragraphs. If you can rephrase some so it'll be under 30% I'll pass it because I do think the quality of the article overall is near GA alteady. Thanks.--Preferwiki (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nub098765 and Preferwiki: Hi! I will serve as the experienced reviewer for this review. I did a quick check at the copyvio and I have suggestions to reduce the similarity. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• where Jason Sudeikis and Brendan Hunt were performing with the improvisational comedy troupe Boom Chicago. Paraphrase
• "more a white rabbit than a white knight" This can just be removed as the statement that directly follows this quote serves the same purpose.
• "Mr. Rogers meets John Wooden" Paraphrase
• "hard to imagine someone better suited" Paraphrase

Everything else that was spotted by the copyvio check sems justifiable. I haven't completely checked this review yet so don't close it.

I believe I have implemented every suggestion you have made so far. nub :) 06:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Experienced reviewer's comments

• Lead section
  • The part about the awards Jason Sudeikis received needs to be expanded and placed at the bottom of the lead section. Check Walter White (Breaking Bad) as a good article reference for how to expand it.
    • I'm on board with expanding it, but must I place it at the end? It feels more fitting in the second paragraph, where the article describes critical reception. Then, the third paragraph zooms out and describes how analysts analyzed the character after the fact. I understand that in Walter White's case, it works, but, and I truly mean to be as respectful as I can, I don't think the awards section fits at the end. Additionally, the awards Walter White received are central to understanding the character—he was almost universally acclaimed, and a list at the end of the lede rightfully enumerates that reality. However, the awards for Ted Lasso were more formalities than anything; he was a good character, so he ought to win awards, but it isn't central to understanding the character. In other words, I can expand it, but I don't think the 10 or so awards he won or was nominated for warrant any more than two sentences in the lede (especially since the accolades section will only be one or two paragraphs by the time I am done implementing your suggestions).
  • The lead section needs to strictly follow MOS:TV#Lead paragraphs. Most of the second paragraph doesn't belong in the lead section. The third paragraph doesn't belong in the lead section. Check Walter White (Breaking Bad) for a good article reference or Homer Simpson for a featured article reference to understand how the lead section should be written.
    • Like above, I'll have to push back a bit. MOS:TV doesn't exactly say anything about TV characters, and what does apply to characters like Ted Lasso, I feel I have adhered to. Most of the second paragraph and the third paragraph (or at the very least, trimmed versions of them) do belong in the lead section; a lead should summarize every part of the article (MOS:TV says A rule of thumb is to write at least one sentence on each section of the article.), and the critical reception and analysis parts are pretty substantial sections of the article.
• "Role" section
  • Split this section into three well-defined subsections (ex. Season 1, Season 2, Season 3). In this way, you don't have to write "In season 1" at the start of the paragraph for example.
    • I'm certainly not trying to be a contrarian, but on this I have to disagree as well. A "role" section (which is just, in effect, a WP:PLOTSECTION) is meant to be relatively short. Thus, I have made it exactly three paragraphs, one for each season. Splitting them into subsections (either by adding more information and splitting those or by splitting what I already have) would either introduce information unnecessary to understand Ted Lasso as a character at a high level or breach MOS:OVERSECTION.
• "Development and writing" section
  • fish-out-of-water is an idiom. Per MOS:IDIOM, idioms should generally be avoided. Rewrite the sentence containing this idiom.
    • Seems fair. Done.
• "Reception" section
  • The "Accolades" subsection needs to be rewritten. Currently, it's filled with unnecessary complex sentences, making it harder to read. Expand this section to include nominations. Use several paragraphs if necessary. Also, the opening sentence should be Sudeikis received various awards and nominations for his performance as Ted Lasso.
    • I mean no snark with this: how are these sentences complex? The second sentence in the section is At the 73rd and 74th Primetime Emmy Awards ceremonies, he received the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series, and he won the Actor Award for Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Comedy Series at the Actor Awards twice: one at the 27th ceremony, and one at the 28th. It may be a bit winding, which I understand, and it is filled with TV-award-jargon (which, I feel, is unavoidable), but I don't understand how esotericism reads as complexity. I would try and pare them down to size regardless, but I don't see a way to make it any less complex other than breaking them down into separate sentences, which I argue interrupts flow. Moving from one award to the next with short, punchy sentences feels more like a laundry list than an encyclopedic description. I'm not saying I wouldn't like to make them less esoteric, but I would like to do it in a way that preserves readability. Like your other suggestion to expand, I'm on board with expanding the section to include nominations. That I can do. Also, your opening sentence suggestion is sound. I could change that.
• Copyvio
  • No issues

@Nub098765 and Preferwiki: After completely reading the article, these are my comments. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@TheVoicelessWriter Thanks for your help. I'll reference Walter White (Breaking Bad) If @Nub098765 manages to finish fixing all of ur feedback it'll be fine to passs it? Or should I wait for you to give an OK? Preferwiki (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

You must inform me before you can close the nomination. Per WP:GANI#N4 – A reviewer may put the review "on hold" for about seven days to give you time to fix any possible issues; reviewers can change the time limit if they wish. – if the issues aren't fixed by the end of the given timeframe, then you can fail the nomination. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@TheVoicelessWriter: Hi! Thanks for reviewing. I've left comments on your suggestions above. Hopefully I'm explaining myself in enough detail. I would like to hear your thoughts. nub :) 06:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nub098765:

• Lead section
  • MOS:TV does talk about TV characters. It is under the Character article structure section. I am guessing you looked at the "Parent, season, and episode article structure" section instead, which does not apply to this article.
  • Anyways, when I suggested to expand something in the lead section, I did not mean to expand it to one full paragraph. It just needs to be a bit more informative than just stating For his portrayal of Ted Lasso, Sudeikis won many awards. You can mention his wins at the Primetime Emmys, Golden Globes, and Critics' Choice – the three biggest award shows for television – and he won twice each. These are very significant for getting to know the character as these indicate the quality of the portrayal and writing of the character. One or two sentences is absolutely fine.
  • The second and third paragraphs just need to be trimmed down to only the most significant details per MOS:LEAD.
• Role section
  • Successful refute. This section is fine as is.
• Reception section
  • Once you include the nominations, you will have to restructure the sentences anyways. Arguing about complexity and esotericism becomes moot at that point.

TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that @Nub098765 has already made edits to the accolades subsection, but there still hasn’t been much progress on the lead. June is almost over, and this review is part of the June 2026 backlog drive. Could @TheVoicelessWriter please advise how we should proceed with this GA review? As I’m new to this process, I’m not sure whether we should aim to reach a final conclusion by the end of June or it's fine to wait? Thanks. Preferwiki (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It's fine to wait; it just won't be completed before the Drive ends. I have put the review on hold. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @TheVoicelessWriter for the response. I actually joined the drive just to learn from the process, so I can do well if someday I have to do solo review. Preferwiki (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @TheVoicelessWriter and @Preferwiki. I apologize for my extremely delayed response to this, but I am here to say I still intend on replying and reworking this article. Life hit me like a bag of bricks this past week and I think I've managed to placate it for just a bit. I will work on this! Mark my word! nub :) 04:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Nub098765! I sure hope everything is working out and I don’t mind waiting. Preferwiki (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)